Not coming home...

[Frank Browne]

No. But when you have an event like this you will have pilots come and some of them will mess up along with some of them getting killed.

True, but that doesn't mean the event is the cause. Is the nice little cafe at airport Kxxx the cause of the fatal crash of the C172 that tried to beat the thunderstorms to the field?

 

[poadeleted3]

1.) snip
The fact of the matter is. If OSH wouldn't have caused all of these people to come ..They'd still be alive.

Horse puckey. If they'd stayed on the ground instead of flying, they'd still be alive. If they'd stayed in bed or cowered in a corner, they'd still be alive. If the pilots hadn't screwed up, they'd still be alive. Which is the real crux of the matter. Osh didn't kill those people, bad piloting did.

 

[FiftyFour]

.....The risk of Osh Kosh is no greater than many others we face and probably a lot less risky than some.

I disagree; the only think riskier in that department is Sun-n-Fun, because there you have a butt-load of pilots who have minimum currency having come out of the shadows of winter. (less flying) and thrusting into a high traffic density airport.

OSH, is better, later in the year, more people are current, and up to speed, but the numbers just add up. You have 30,000 + aircraft movements during the week, where the bulk of the pilots are not professionals and nearly NONE are actually talking with Ground ATC (and yes I know why that is) it is just a statistics game.

Four people dead, I am thinking that is not so bad when you crunch the numbers. But risky? yep, I won’t fly in unless it is IFR, or if I fly in for work. I don’t want to scratch my airplane the paint job stinks and I don’t want to make it any worse.


www.airracecentral.com

 

[Ed Guthrie]

I'll throw just a bit of gasoline on the discussion here. I appreciate the posting. It reminds me why I, so far, have stayed away from big events like this one. They simply draw too many aircraft to a too small space. With that many aircraft, someone will be there who is not really competent to be there, doesn't fly a whole lot, not used to busy traffic patterns etc.

In my personal risk assessment, events like Osh and Sun and Fun, where multiple aircraft are landing at various spots on the runway at the same time, where hundreds of aircraft arrive in a small time space, and where you have to taxi for an hour to get out, are too great a risk. I watch these events, and postings, and see the odds stacking up too much.

Of course, YMMV.

Jim G

Folks need to consider how many aircraft come & go at Oshkosh (about 15,000 IIRC) and the statistical fatal accident rate of GA (about 1.4 fatal accidents/100,000 flight hours; about 6.7 accidents/100,000 flight hours). 15,000 planes flying from all over the US (and the world) to a point in Wisconsin. How many flight hours do you imagine were involved? I put 11 on the Mooney, and I was but one of ~15,000 aircraft, and I didn't come from all that far away as the general population of aircraft and their geographic distribution goes (most are in California, Texas, and Florida, IIRC). Putting the number of aircraft and the flight times involved together, it doesn't take a math wiz to realize the 100,000 flight hour mark will be crossed by the collective sum of aircraft going to Oshkosh, which puts a fatal accident in the relm of what statisticians call "a mathematical certainty", and accidents overall near (if not over) double digits. Given that crashes are binary events (either it is or it isn't--there is no 0.5 accident) and taking into account normal statistical variations, it isn't surprising at all that we had 2 fatal accidents this year.

 

[Greebo]

1.) RV stalls on base to final - Probably all worked up about OSH..Just wanting to get on the ground. Aircraft all over. Pilot nervous. He messed up. I bet if he wouldn't have tried to come to OSH he wouldn't have been in this situation.

You're bet doesn't make it true - you're arguing your assumption into fact in your head but all that any of us really know is he stalled on base to final. Pilots sometimes stall when low and slow - OSH didn't cause that.

2.) Cub ditches in Lake Michigan - Flew to Oshkosh and just wanted to get home. Probably wouldn't be flying over lakes otherwise..But there is this really huge event and they think it's worth it.

Again, assumption based on facts not entered into evidence. We don't know the risk assessment abilities of the dunked pilot. I, for one, wouldn't be flying over big lakes in a single w/o life gear and lots of altitude, in any circumstance. The longer flight around the drink is the safer one. Still, pilots do sometimes fly across big blues and go for a dive. OSH didn't cause the decision making.

3.) RV and TBM don't see eachother taxiing - It's HOT outside. Everyone just wants to get in the air. They are all lined for god knows how long. If they wouldn't have been at OSH they wouldn't be in this situation.

Impatience and foolish risk taking is also not caused by OSH. Pilots occasionally get impatient and try to cut in front of others. Thats why we have the rule about lower in the pattern but not using that to cut in - cause people probably DID try to do just that. People are impatient - OSh doesn't cause that either.

All three incidents can, and DO, occur all over the country, every month. OSH doesn't cause the incidents - OSH just creates a statistical anomoly by being such a huge event.

 

[jesse]

OSH just creates a statistical anomoly by being such a huge event.

That is exactly what I am saying.

 

[Greebo]

That is exactly what I am saying.

No, it isn't.

You've been saying that were it not for Osh, these accidents would not have occurred. Stopping Osh won't stop the accidents, they'll just stop them from happening AT Osh.

Osh has accidents as Ed pointed out, because statistically for every x hours you're going to get y accidents, on average.

Suggesting that stopping Osh will stop the accidents is only correct if carried to its fullest: If you want to stop the accidents, stop everyone flying. No X, no Y.

 

[jesse]

No, it isn't.

You've been saying that were it not for Osh, these accidents would not have occurred. Stopping Osh won't stop the accidents, they'll just stop them from happening AT Osh.

I'm saying if OSH wouldn't have occured, those couple of pilots would still be alive. That's all.

Suggesting that stopping Osh will stop the accidents is only correct if carried to its fullest: If you want to stop the accidents, stop everyone flying. No X, no Y.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. Nor am I suggesting stopping OSH or changing anything about it. I'm simply bring both sides of this to the table.

Four people are dead. They aren't a statistic, nor are they a number, they are a person with family and friends that no longer exist because they wanted to go to a fly-in. They are fellow pilots. They messed up at the wrong time. EVERY single one of us has messed up. If we would have made that exact same mistake at a different moment in time we would be dead too.

Be safe everyone.

 

[grattonja]

Folks need to consider how many aircraft come & go at Oshkosh (about 15,000 IIRC) and the statistical fatal accident rate of GA (about 1.4 fatal accidents/100,000 flight hours; about 6.7 accidents/100,000 flight hours). 15,000 planes flying from all over the US (and the world) to a point in Wisconsin. How many flight hours do you imagine were involved? I put 11 on the Mooney, and I was but one of ~15,000 aircraft, and I didn't come from all that far away as the general population of aircraft and their geographic distribution goes (most are in California, Texas, and Florida, IIRC). Putting the number of aircraft and the flight times involved together, it doesn't take a math wiz to realize the 100,000 flight hour mark will be crossed by the collective sum of aircraft going to Oshkosh, which puts a fatal accident in the relm of what statisticians call "a mathematical certainty", and accidents overall near (if not over) double digits. Given that crashes are binary events (either it is or it isn't--there is no 0.5 accident) and taking into account normal statistical variations, it isn't surprising at all that we had 2 fatal accidents this year.

Which supports my point. You simply increase the odds of something bad happening by virtue of so many flight hours happening all at once, terminating in one place. I'm not saying the fatals are any surprise, statistically (to the extent I didn't fail college math) the chances for fatals with that many flight hours happening are higher, as you've noted. I just figure personally it is a good place for me not to be. Just because I can't win the lottery doesn't mean that I couldn't become a statistic at OSH. Add in some of the "stupid pilot tricks" that I have seen in the last two years or so, and that environment could be rather scary.

And for those arguing with Jesse, I tend to agree with him on this one. Never mind percentages etc, I think he is saying simply that some of those people would not be up flying but for OSH, and furthermore that the pressures of getting there/getting out are greater and lead to, perhaps, more questionable judgement on the part of some pilots. All of which makes sense to me and factors into my decision that I will probably go to OSH someday, but flying in elsewhere and renting a car.

Jim G

 

[poadeleted3]

That is exactly what I am saying.

You seem, to me, to be saying that fly-ins are too dangerous an activity, and should not be happening. Am I hearing (or rather, reading) incorrectly?

 

[jesse]

You seem, to me, to be saying that fly-ins are too dangerous an activity, and should not be happening. Am I hearing (or rather, reading) incorrectly?

I'm saying that they are dangerous. It's stupid to sit here and say they are not. I'm not say that they shouldn't exist. Nor am I saying that I will not continue to fly to flyins including OSH.

 

[infotango]

Folks need to consider how many aircraft come & go at Oshkosh (about 15,000 IIRC) and the statistical fatal accident rate of GA (about 1.4 fatal accidents/100,000 flight hours; about 6.7 accidents/100,000 flight hours). 15,000 planes flying from all over the US (and the world) to a point in Wisconsin. How many flight hours do you imagine were involved? I put 11 on the Mooney, and I was but one of ~15,000 aircraft, and I didn't come from all that far away as the general population of aircraft and their geographic distribution goes (most are in California, Texas, and Florida, IIRC). Putting the number of aircraft and the flight times involved together, it doesn't take a math wiz to realize the 100,000 flight hour mark will be crossed by the collective sum of aircraft going to Oshkosh, which puts a fatal accident in the relm of what statisticians call "a mathematical certainty", and accidents overall near (if not over) double digits. Given that crashes are binary events (either it is or it isn't--there is no 0.5 accident) and taking into account normal statistical variations, it isn't surprising at all that we had 2 fatal accidents this year.

Nicely said, Ed.
I think this meshes well with Jesse's explanation as well. I believe what you two are saying is not really that different.

For comparison, I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where) that the organizers of the Sturgis motorcycle rally were happy because there were only 10 fatalities last year....
Somebody may want to fill me on on the details here. Is a large scale motorcycle event more dangerous than a large scale airplane event?

 

[Bill]

Is a large scale motorcycle event more dangerous than a large scale airplane event?

The differences in drunkeness and drunkeness induced stupidity are orders of magnitude. Like flying, riding a bike is serious business, and any lapse of attention can put you in a world of hurt.

 

[FiftyFour]

Nicely said, Ed.
Somebody may want to fill me on on the details here. Is a large scale motorcycle event more dangerous than a large scale airplane event?

This is an apples and oranges comparison. In a given year thee are about 200,000 motorcycle crashes. (NHSA). and we all know that only the crashes that do enough damage to the bike to trigger a violation by the Police (or other official record) are noted. I would *guess* the actual number of accidents in a given year would be well north of 4 times that.

Again the issue is where you draw the line. Fatalities only or just accidents? I got rear ended on my bike years ago, it cracked the taillight and I got a little cut up on my hands when they came off and into the cabling, but I did not report it. As it was cheaper to buy a new taillight, plus the Buick’s plastic grill was totaled. grin… but I digress,

With aviation it is all the things listed in the FARs (section 830 or whathaveyou) that tells us when we are REQUIRED to notify the government. So, the unreported accidents in aviation (also because they tend to be more newsworthy) are more rare and thus the numbers are closer to accurate than that of motorcycles.

The other thing in tracking the numbers is in Aviation, is the statistics are tracked by flight hour for the operators, and by ‘passenger embarkments’ for the folks sitting in the back of an airliner. Motorcycles are tracked by registered units.

So all in all, I would say it is a higher percentage of injuries for a large motorcycle rally Sturgis for example, ,from inattention, crowds gunshots and the like.

 

[Pjsmith]

Horse puckey. If they'd stayed on the ground instead of flying, they'd still be alive. If they'd stayed in bed or cowered in a corner, they'd still be alive. If the pilots hadn't screwed up, they'd still be alive. Which is the real crux of the matter. Osh didn't kill those people, bad piloting did.

I'll be a Contrary Mary for a sec here;

Joe, are you sure that it was bad piloting that killed these people? Sounds to me like there were various layers of circumstances in two of the three incidents (and maybe all three) that lead to their demise. To sum it up to 'pilot error' is perhaps a gross simplification of the reality.

And, on the flip side, I'll wax philosophic:

If you thought too hard about all the small decisions in your everyday life that could lead to your death (stepping off the curb, when to make the left turn with oncoming traffic, eating at Dennys, etc.), which we almost miraculously avoid each day, it might be hard just to get out of bed in the morning. People with adventure in them either ignore these risks, or factor them into their lives. It's what allowed you to walk into that FBO all alone that very first day and say 'teach me how to fly.'. These people were pilots, and probably knew the risks that they were taking, as we all do on some level. I mourn their passing, but cannot assign blame to anyone, including them. It wasn't caused. It just was.

 

[poadeleted3]

I'll be a Contrary Mary for a sec here;

Joe, are you sure that it was bad piloting that killed these people? Sounds to me like there were various layers of circumstances in two of the three incidents (and maybe all three) that lead to their demise. To sum it up to 'pilot error' is perhaps a gross simplification of the reality.

And, on the flip side, I'll wax philosophic:

If you thought too hard about all the small decisions in your everyday life that could lead to your death (stepping off the curb, when to make the left turn with oncoming traffic, eating at Dennys, etc.), which we almost miraculously avoid each day, it might be hard just to get out of bed in the morning. People with adventure in them either ignore these risks, or factor them into their lives. It's what allowed you to walk into that FBO all alone that very first day and say 'teach me how to fly.'. These people were pilots, and probably knew the risks that they were taking, as we all do on some level. I mourn their passing, but cannot assign blame to anyone, including them. It wasn't caused. It just was.

Yeah, I'm sure it was bad piloting. Dig through the layers of circumstances, and you'll find a bad decision that led to their deaths. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming to be above making mistakes, far from it. If I ever go down, the odds are long ya'll will be able to say the same thing about my death. I don't buy the "it just was" argument. Nearly all crashes are caused by, at their roots, bad piloting. My goal, the reason I study accident reports and listen to other pilots tell of their mistakes, is to try to avoid making the bad decisions that kill most pilots. I'm not trying to heap scorn on the dead. I just don't think we should gloss over what caused the tragedies, and try to avoid repeating the mistakes in the future.

 

[tonycondon]

"It Just Was" sounds like one heck of a Resignation Hazardous Attitude to me...

 

[Bob Bement]

There are risks in every thing you do. You can not hide out and be safe, you must live your life to it's fullest.
My son in law worked in a dept. store. On a Monday they were taking up a collection for one of the female workers. My son in law asked why, as he had just worked with her the Friday before. They said she was home in her apartment watching TV and her neighbor was cleaning his .357 Mag. pistol. It went off accidently went through the wall, the couch and killed her. As others have pointed out in this post things happen,and will keep on happening. So go fly and enjoy yourselves and hope you keep out of the News.